This blog is a collection of what goes through the mind of a father, a husband, a son, a friend, a lawyer (not your lawyer), and a storyteller, all competing for attention in my head.
The golden rule applies here.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Gerson First Wrote This

But I think it bears repeating. Defenders of Arizona's Illegal Immigration law need to recognize that they went on the record in defense of a law that was so overbroad and blatantly racist that even the drafters of the law had to change it.

What Gerson wrote: It must be awkward to have risen to the vigorous defense of legal language that even its authors, in the end, could not defend. But the law’s advocates are making the best of things out on their sawed-off limb. The law is now more “explicit” about its true intention. It is a “clarification.” But this isn’t a clarification; it is retreat. The authors of the Arizona law initially wrote it as broadly as they thought they could get away with. But they were caught. Their retreat does not confirm their intentions were good. It confirms that the original law was deeply flawed -- a dramatic, disturbing overreach.

He goes on to note that "lawful stop" can still be quite broad, as it allows investigation for violations of community ordinances, property or rental codes, such as having a car on blocks...

In addition to all this, someone needs to address how this new law will impact border security or prevent illegals from crossing the border, it just serves to harass those who are already here, both legal and illegally.